# Panna Lal & Ors v. The Collector, Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1425
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-10-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64061 of 2013
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Shri Narayan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/panna-lal-ors-v-the-collector-allahabad-ors-43145
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act
1976-Section 10 (b), 19 (5)-petitioner
seeking direction to delete the
State
from revenue record-claimimg in actual
physical possession-no specific denialmere taking possession on paper without
following procedure under Section 19
(5)-no possession in eye of law-direction
to struck of the name of state as well as
ADA given-petition allowed.
Held: Para-4
From
the
impugned
order,
it
is
apparently clear that no proceeding was
initiated under section 10(6) of the Act
and consequently, the alleged possession
taken
on
paper
and
thereafter
transferring
the
same
to
Allahabad
Development Authority appears to be
wholly
illegal
and
without
any
justification.
Case Law discussed:
2013 (4) SCC 280; 2014 (4) ADJ 305

## Text

3 All].
Panna Lal & Ors. Vs. The Collector, Allahabad. & Ors.
1425
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64061 of 2013
Panna Lal & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Collector, Allahabad & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Harish K. Yadav.
Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C., Sri S.P. Srivastava, Sri S.P. Singh
Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act
1976-Section 10 (b), 19 (5)-petitioner
seeking direction to delete the
State
from revenue record-claimimg in actual
physical possession-no specific denialmere taking possession on paper without
following procedure under Section 19
(5)-no possession in eye of law-direction
to struck of the name of state as well as
ADA given-petition allowed.
Held: Para-4
From
the
impugned
order,
it
is
apparently clear that no proceeding was
initiated under section 10(6) of the Act
and consequently, the alleged possession
taken
on
paper
and
thereafter
transferring
the
same
to
Allahabad
Development Authority appears to be
wholly
illegal
and
without
any
justification.
Case Law discussed:
2013 (4) SCC 280; 2014 (4) ADJ 305
(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)
1. Baladeen was the original tenure
holder of Gata No. 139 having an area
4872.94 sq. meter situate in village
Dadanpur,
Tehsil
Chail
District
Allahabad.
Under
the
Urban
Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the
competent authority declared 3372.94 sq.
meter as surplus land. The petitioners are
the children and grand children of late
Baladeen who have filed the present writ
petition alleging that they are still in
possession of the land in question and that
the order of the District Magistrate dated
22.5.2013
rejecting
their
application
should be set aside and the name of State
of U.P. should be deleted from the
revenue records and their names should
be incorporated in view of the fact that all
the proceedings under the Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, stood
repealed by virtue of the Urban Land
(Ceiling
and
Regulation)
Repeal
Act,1999. This court under the earlier
ground of litigation had directed the
petitioner to make a representation which
has been rejected by an order dated
15.5.2013.
2. The petitioner in paragraph 10 of
the writ petition has made a categorical
statement that they are in actual and
physical possession. This fact has not
been denied by the respondents in
paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit.
3. From a perusal of the order of the
District Magistrate,the court finds that the
possession was alleged to have been taken
by the delegate of the District Magistrate
on 18.9.1984 pursuant to the order dated
18th September, 1984 declaring the land
as
surplus.
The
order
of
District
Magistrate aforesaid further indicates that
the land was transferred to Allahabad
Development Authority on 10.1.1990 and
possession of such transfer was recorded
in the notice under section 10(5) of the
Act. Nothing has been indicated in the
1426
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order that voluntary possession
was given by the original tenure holder or
children or by the grand children under
section 10(5) of the Act nor anything has
been indicated that upon failure to give
voluntary possession under section 10(5)
by the original tenure holder or by his
heirs, actual and physical possession was
taken pursuant to the proceedings initiated
under section 10(6) of the Act.
4. From the impugned order, it is
apparently clear that no proceeding was
initiated under section 10(6) of the Act
and consequently, the alleged possession
taken on paper and thereafter transferring
the same to Allahabad Development
Authority appears to be wholly illegal and
without any justification.
5. In State of U.P. Versus Hari
Singh 2013 (4) SCC 280 the Supreme
Court has held that actual physical
possession is required to be taken by the
State under section 19(5) and 10(6) of the
Act otherwise the benefit of the Repeal
Act would have to be given to the tenure
holder. Similar view was held by this
Court in the case of Yasin and others
Versus State of U.P. and others 2014 (4)
ADJ 305.
6. We also find that inspite of time
being granted no counter affidavit has
been filed by the Allahabad Development
Authority nor the counsel is present
before the Court In the light of the
aforesaid the impugned order of the
District Magistrate cannot be sustained
and is quashed. Writ petition is allowed.
A writ of mandamus is issued directing
the respondents not to interfere in the
possession of the petitioners over the land
in dispute. Further a writ of mandamus is
issued commanding the State of U.P. to
remove the name of the State of U.P.
and/or remove the name of the Allahabad
Development Authority from the revenue
record and record the names of the
petitioners on the land in question.
--------